Dismissed

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/8513/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lokayukta challenged the Administrative Tribunal's quashing of compulsory retirement imposed on a surveyor for a proven bribery misconduct of Rs.500. The High Court declined interference, holding the acquittal honourable in light of its P.V. Rudrappa ruling, dismissed the petition, and limited financial benefits to accrued service benefits.

What did the court decide?

None to petitioner; employee retains continuity of service with no other financial benefit, though accrued service benefits such as increments are payable if reinstated.

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB WP No. 8513 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO.8513 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (SURVEY), REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB WP No. 8513 of 2021

¶17

SRI. H. R. SETTY S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. K.SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3.)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANYOTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2528/2017, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, b)AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETIITON AND c)PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INTERIM PRAYER WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAY THAT PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO STAY THE OPERATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/02/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2528/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE KRISHNA S DIXIT J., THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta has presented this writ petition calling in question the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 26^th February, 2020 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A, whereby, the Tribunal has

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB WP No. 8513 of 2021

¶25

quashed the disciplinary penalty of compulsory retirement that was awarded to the respondent-employee herein on the proven misconduct of bribery, the frugal bribe amount being Rs.500/-.

¶26

Learned panel counsel for the petitioner vehemently

¶27

argues that relief has been granted by the Tribunal to the respondent-employee treating Criminal Court’s judgment as an honourable acquittal, when it is not. He submits that in deciding cases for bribery & corruption, the quantum of bribe amount is irrelevant, what is important being the moral turpitude of public servant concerned. From that view, he argues, the impugned order is liable to be voided and the penalty order of compulsory retirement needs to be revived.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the delinquent employee opposes the petition contending that the version of criminal court, in its acquittal order, leaves no manner of doubt as to its being honourable acquittal of the petitioner; the Tribunal, which comprised of experts in the field as Members having examined everything in their wisdom, have rendered the impugned order and therefore, this Court should not

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB WP No. 8513 of 2021

¶31

venture a roving enquiry as to the findings recorded by the Tribunal; even otherwise, regard being had to the frugality of the amount involved, and as a concession to the arguable human nature, this Court may not interfere in the matter.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petitioner paper we decline interference in the matter broadly agreeing to the reasoning of the Tribunal, more particularly, we are of the view that the criminal court’s order in Special Case No.10 of 2005 disposed of on 24^th September, 2009, is an order of honourable acquittal, in the light of norms reiterated by this Court in W.P.No.9642/2020 (S-KSAT) between P.V.RUDRAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 30.01.2024.

¶33

The above view gains support from the following observation of the criminal Court:

¶34

" …the prosecution even though subjected to examine material witness of PW3 who being the author of Exhibit.P3 and so also the material witnesses of PW3 and PW4 who have been secured to act as panchas and in their presence held entrust panchanama as per Exhibit.P3 for having to show that if tainted currency

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB WP No. 8513 of 2021

¶36

notes has been touched by a person as his hands were washed with sodium solution which turned into pink in colour and that PW3 and PW4 have not been supported the case of the prosecution to any extent even in the facts of Exhibit.P4 and Exhibit.P5 of the panchanama has been held by PW9 who being the I.O in part has been held entire investigation as where that PW6 who laid the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, having examined the evidence placed on record closely that too be the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 insofar as Exhibit.P3, Exhibit P4 and Exhibit.P5 founds that the prosecution is failed to establish the case even for having subjected to examine PW2 who is the author of the complaint as he was not supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that the accused was demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.500/- i.e. in the denomination of Rs.100/- each which is marked as M.O.10 and also that prosecution has failed to establish the case that there was a conversation took in between the accused and the complainant has been heard by PW4 being the shadow witness who has accompanied with the complainant to the house of the accused. "

¶37

In the above circumstances, this writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner, except earning the continuity of service, shall not have any financial benefit. However, if he is

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB WP No. 8513 of 2021

¶40

already reinstated, all service benefits such as increments, etc. that would accrue during the service, shall be paid to the respondent-employee, immediately.

Costs made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Razin K I M Vs the Secretary

Sri.K.C.Ashwath Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S C Kodandaramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Govindaraju K R Vs the State of Karnataka

B R Swamy Vs State of Karnataka